Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
The General Welfare, Gas, and a Vote
for ObamaFueled up? Fired up? As always in life, you can usually find someone who has it worse. The last time I got diesel fuel for my VW it was $5.09/gal. Time before that it was $4.76, and before that $4.50 and $4.37. When I was telling my woes to a friend she pointed out that I do get over 30 mpg, and not every car does that well. Nor do I have to fill up more that once every 7-10 days.
Imagine what the big trucks and RVs are going through. If you have, you've given it more thought than our government has.
The government has lots of reasons why gas prices are so high—none of them their doing. My German-born VW mechanic, still sold on the benefits of diesel, had his perspective—“we messed with the wrong people.” Probably.
Talking with my housemate, Edward, about what we could do with our diesel cars he joked that we could try sugar cane. With sugar cane, it only takes one gallon of petroleum to make 7 gallons of fuel. I tried biodiesel, usually soybean oil, which isn't as good. It produces 2.5 gallons of fuel for every gallon of gas. And the government favorite, ethanol, made from corn, uses one gallon of petroleum to produce one gallon of ethanol. The Feds even throw in fifty cents for every gallon ethanol makers produce as an incentive to produce more. Is that sustainable?
This is obviously where we went wrong. If we had an energy policy, studied fuels, knew this and made better energy choices; AND we had a plan for invading—and leaving—Iraq beforehand, we might have seen it couldn't work. Things could be different. Good planning and foresight would have revealed very clearly that the place to invade was Cuba.
They're close by, they have plenty of sugar cane (cheap fuel), have a convenient prison in Guantanamo, and half of Miami would have volunteered to do the fighting. They speak the same language. The National Guard could have stayed home. American troops—and later tourists—would have found a quality healthcare system in place, one rated higher than ours anyway. The Administration could even retain their “higher purpose” so we wouldn't be trying to convince them that pushing democracy on countries by force isn't exactly democratic. Since we have a long history of dominating Cuba—before Fidel Castro—we might have done better. We could have been liberators. Is it too late?
Well, when you don't have foresight, you're forced to use hindsight, I guess.
Despite all their denials to the contrary, in hindsight, one thing is clear. When a President and Vice-Pres. have roots—spreading roots—in the same industry—that industry will prosper. I mean what were we thinking? Exxxon has profited more than any country in history. We hear the sophisticated theories of international economists about why it is this way, but really, what were we thinking? (Some of us, anyway.) Of course we would end up where we were headed.
We're offered many theories and reasons, but really, are China and India really using that much gas? How many freeways and cars do they have? Not many. Know anyone who has voluntarily decided to drive more? How about the opposite? If the law of supply and demand was really a valid economic reality—instead of a distracting manipulation of our thinking—gas prices would be going down.
Isn't it time to simply acknowledge that prices are what they are because we don't have a good energy policy. We have no strategy. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't provide for that. What we know for sure is who is profiting, and the Administration likes that.
Looking ahead, one forgotten principle that can help us is found in the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers argued a lot, but they all agreed that the general welfare took precedence over helping special business interests.
If you hear a politician say supporting businesses like Exxon is the American way, ask what Founding Father felt that way.
At some point don't we have to remind Congress that they have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? I've seen no mention of stockholder's rights there—only individual rights—for all individuals. They took an oath to promote the “general welfare.”
The opposite of the general welfare is when the profits of one industry blowup the budgets of every individual—and every Federal agency, State, city, county, hospital, school, transit district, police, fire, military and every business in the country—except one industry. In general, it really hurts all of us/US. Isn't that terrorism?
I have to wonder if gas prices might become the contemporary equivalent of the tea tax that prompted the Boston Tea Party. We can hope.
I think the Republicans are in for a rude awakening come fall—unless we get distracted, which happens when we think we are terrorized. But aren't we already?
The Democratic Primary
I haven't written much about the Presidential primaries since in California, we've already voted. Talking to a friend and reader of The Light Connection this past month, however, I realized that by not mentioning it, he thought I still felt the same way as I felt before the primary, and so I should probably set the record straight.
So what are the defining criteria for a President? I was thinking experience when I first endorsed Sen. Hilary Clinton. I thought she was more specific on several issues. With the current challenges of war, energy policy and the economy—to name a few—having as much experience as possible was important, I felt.
Then again, President George Bush has even more experience and it doesn't seem to help much. Perhaps there are other more defining qualifications. In truth, I have to wonder if anything can really prepare someone to be President.
I don't like hearing that working class white men may be supporting Sen. Clinton because of racial prejudice. The truth is, however, that the last few Democrats have not won that demographic anyway. The general election will draw more voters than the primaries it will be a whole new game.
Choosing is tough when you look the numbers. What's the most important number? Delegates? With or without Florida and Michigan? The popular vote? Since we don't elect the President based on a popular vote, perhaps the electoral vote.
While the Democratic race has been over-analyzed, all it proves is that the word “anal-ysis” is derived from anal-retentive.
So what's most important?
I have to think that in a democratic process such as ours, the most important number is 75,000. I mean the 75,000 people that showed up to hear Sen. Barack Obama speak in Portland, Oregon. Did you know that was the equivalent of 1 of every 6 people in that city?
Seeing that type of support for Sen. Obama and hearing that he has attracted many people who have not previously been involved in or excited about the political process has convinced me that he can and already is contributing the most to support our system of government. And that's what we need.
To suit me Sen. Obama could be more specific about his programs, but when he is specific his programs make sense. He objected to simply doing away with the gas tax for a few months as a quick fix, a expedient move, and not a solution. Of course it is.
I liked Sen. John Edwards' platform better, but they share many positions. Plus in our system, it's Congress that comes up with the final details of the legislation, so the devil—the favors and paybacks—is in the details.
When the current President holds us/US up as the shinning example of democracy in the world—and other countries consistently have better voter turnout that we do—the 75,000 number, and what it represents, is the most significant to consider.
In a country where more and more of us think the system corrupt; and more and more people think that “he who has the gold makes the rules,” the best thing for us might be attracting people—especially the young—who are excited about the process, participating in it and feel that they can make a difference.
There are a lot of people supporting Sen. Obama who believe people can make a difference. Maybe that will be infectious and spread everywhere. We should find out.
Compared to recycling past Administrations, a fresh start with all new people would be refreshing. We need people who believe that no one is above the law. That fair and right—not just power—are important. That the government is more than just a tool to expand favored businesses around the world. That promoting the general welfare does not mean paving the way for American businesses to dominate the economies of other countries.
That it does mean thinking of promoting for the people—not money, not votes. Let's get back to where we once belonged.
Enough for now, it's tea time. Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
